If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
It’s one of the best movie’s I’ve ever seen. So I’m sitting here wondering why I was so intent on skipping it when it came out two years ago. And it’s because it has the shittiest trailer ever.
Jason Schwartzman in Wes Anderson’s Hotel Chavalier
Wes Anderson’s 13-minute film Hotel Chavalier was made available exsclusively though iTunes over the weekend, which I only know about because Shane linked to it. Apparently, it serves as prologue to Wes Anderson’s upcoming film, The Darjeeling Limited. It’s a free download, and, obviously, is worth a watch.
Prologue is Anderson’s word for what this is and I don’t think that’s very accurate. Insofar as the piece relates to the upcoming film, it functions more as a teaser. (More questions are raised than answered, unless you’re question is “What does Natalie Portman’s ass look like with a huge bruise on it?”). The prominent placement of familiar Apple products - sort of startling in the context of Anderson’s universe - reveals the intention of the piece: Hotel Chavalier is a clever ad for for Apple. I’m sure Apple wanted to tie themselves to Anderson’s “brand;” they’re fans probably overlap a whole lot.
This doesn’t necessarily make this any less valuable. I loved Anderson’s American Express commercial from a couple of years ago, and I think there can be significant crossover between artistic and commercial endeavors. My point: just saying this is a piece of marketing. I think that’s pretty clear.
I’m not entirely sure how I came across this but the Checkerboard Film Foundation has been making documentaries about artists, composers and writers for 30 years. They produced a documentary on John Szarkowski in 1998. There is also another film called Szarkowski on Eugene Atget and one called Szarkowski on Szarkowski. They’re all available for sale on DVD for the bargain price of $45. I searched Google Video and YouTube for all or part of these guys to no avail. Please let me know if you’ve seen any of them, I emailed and asked if there was a student rate.
Read more: John Szarkowski
© Francisco Scavullo
I just picked up a ticket to see Black White and Gray: A Portrait of Robert Mapplethorpe and Sam Wagstaff at Silverdocs on Saturday. I don’t know all that much about Wagstaff, but obviously I’ve had quite a bit of exposure to Mapplethorpe. Just from reading the description of this film, I learned that their roommate in the early 1970s was Patti Smith. This flick’s gonna be sweet, I’ll write about it after.
So check this out because this is something Cosmic in its implications. Are you paying attention?
At this moment, I am sitting in the Butler Library on the American University campus, writing my midterm for a class I’m in on contemporary art. Or rather, I should say that I’m sitting here with my midterm open and books on the desk and reading photography blogs. That’s not what’s important though. What’s important is this.
My art history professor made a note on the top of the midterm that we are to use Arial (or Helvetica) at 11 point to take the midterm. Who knows why she stipulated this, probably because people write shit really small sometimes when they don’t know what they’re talking about. In any case, as you may have noticed, that’s my typeface of choice, and I, like the New York Metropolitan Transit Authority and man countless others, condense the letters. So, not wanting to be marked down for this, I made a little note on the top of my paper.
A small note before beginning. The condensed font is a common aesthetic choice regarding this typeface, not one made to save space on this particular assignment. I can’t stand looking at something I’ve written with massive gaps between the characters. Why, after crafting an argument, would I present it full of holes?
Yeah, ok, so I know that’s kind of weird, maybe a little pretentious or something to write this kind of thing a prof, but it’s what I do anyway and I didn’t want to be marked down for it. Plus I’m pretty sure she’d think it’s funny and maybe a little endearing. So that’s about as far as I’ve gotten in writing this paper, but then I found this, and I wasn’t even looking for it. Read the rest of this entry »
I’m writing this later paper on Maya Deren’s 1943 experimental film, “Meshes of the Afternoon,” and I thought I’d post it here for anyone who hasn’t see it or would like to see it again. It’s unfortunately in two parts and the picture isn’t quite true to the original 16mm. But you’ll still get the idea.
I’ll come right out and say it: I sort of idolize Andy Warhol. And yeah, that’s definitely a pretty easy thing to right now, since the eighties came back around again and all that, but I really do think that Warhol was to the second half of the 20th century what Picasso was to the first. I have all the research papers to back it up, too; I’ve written three.
So, this movie coming out about Edie Sedgwick, “Factory Girl,” has two main problems that become apparent just from the trailer. Namely, they are Guy Peirce and Hayden Christenson, the dreamboats cast to play Warhol and Dylan, respectively (though Dylan has been fictionalized in this movie - the character’s name is Billy Quinn, which is lame.) I think one thing we can say about both Warhol and Dylan is that neither of them were, even when they were young, extraordinarily attractive people, so like, what the fuck. Casting these two dudes may give us some indication of what I’m afraid this movie is going to be: sort of stupid.
I really hope not. Warhol and Dylan’s battle over Edie Sedgwick is sort of an allegory for the forces that were shaping the American cultural consciousness. It would be a real shame to waste this making some superficial bullshit movie packed with celebrities. And everyone will be running around talking about how much they adore Warhol and what an impact he had and all that - like getting all into Nirvana after Kurt Cobain done killed hisself.
I’m sure by now most of you have either seen the preview for or otherwise heard of “Death of a President,” the fake documentary about the fictional assassination of President Bush. The film was controversial for about a milisecond; then it won best film at the Toronto Film Festival, and I think maybe some others. It was supposed to come to theaters, I don’t know if it did or if it didn’t, but it has made its way onto Google Video, and is free for the watching. I also have the torrent for you if you prefer, courtesy of mininova. Man, has the internet gotten great or what?
I want to mention something about the fake news photograph, which is pretty interesting. it really is a fantastically iconic image, instantly recognizable and well done. I imagine that it wasn’t all that easy to coordinate such a shot; it has the spontaneity of a true news photograph, one that would be the go-to image for this would-be violent turning point in a sad period of America’s history. The assassination, however, is staged. So rather than being elevated to icon, this photograph is merely fantastic marketing for a controversial film.
